They had suits to deal with an inhospitable stratosphere.
Which someone whom specializes in extracting samples from the field could have wore in replacement of Milburn. Once again, machines that just needed their buttons pushed was Fifield's only job... Why was he there?
Potentially risky exploration is how most of the world was discovered. There's a big jump from that to petting a hitherto undiscovered alien lifeform that's seemingly acting aggressively because you think it's cute. Especially if your supposed to be an expert in fauna.
One is a hazard of the job, the other is going out of your way to be an idiot.
Well, yeah; except putting yourself in a hazard when you have the resources to avoid the hazard is foolish within its own merrit.
Yet the plain stupidity was the cinematic flair needed to propel the plot in this circumstance.
No, relying on characters making unrealistically moronic decisions to propel the plot is simply bad plotting.
You're disagreeing with me yet you paraphrased the statement I made...
Alien managed to achieve what it wanted without ever inducing the audience to scream, "Why are you such a f*cking moron?!" at the screen.
That is highly debatable. I always felt that there were many moments in Alien that induced that type of impression.
It's not that they characters are dumb, it's that they're so dumb I can't believe for even one moment that you'd spend millions, billions, trillions on sending an expedition to the farthest reaches of known space to potentially make first contact with intelligent alien life, and then crew the ship with such a bunch of retards. It completely undermines the entire movie for me.
I can understand this sentiment. I notice you use words like dumb and retarded to convey your perspective, is Prometheus that infuriating for you? How do you feel about the upcoming installment?
The question is at what budget point does a singular creative force get overridden? If you asked me when i wrote my original post late last night I would have had a different answer heh.
That's a good question! I don't know much of the business in film but I could tell you what I do know of executive concepts in the business world and how it could be relatable to film in some way. First we look at a film much as if it were any other standard business project, for example; a restaurant, salon, attorney's office, etc. Second we are looking at the objective of the project: make large amounts of money based on a situational opportunity or establish a running franchise. When capitalizing on situational opportunities you'll find that executive branches (producers in this case) would often step back and be more sensitive with the visionary (directors) directing the project in not to disrupt the chances of success. With a running franchise however, executives tend to take more initiative as the investment and the goals are too grand to risk the price of failure. With that beind said, the more promising the project is, the more larger the pool of investors which in turn creates a larger executive share.
Seldom scenarios that arise of this are usually when the amount of shareholders are too many and they really need to rely on the direction of the visionary as to eliminate too much contrary directions; the other is when a visionary is well distinguished and well recognized that they themselves are part of the budget.
So to better answer your question, it is not a point in budget rather a point in capacity that determines whether a singular creative authority no longer becomes feasible and this usually is more prevalent when you have a smaller pool of executives.
Agreed, Fassbender just slipped a name that's all. Although I saw some places reporting that Fassbender gave away all those details that you actually dug-up.
Quite a few places did. Is it that hard to actually read the f**king information. This is one of the big problems I have with Internet coverage. No-one f**king reads what they're actually reporting on.
Reminds me of the nightmare I had to go through with GAvP.